Along with the info in the article, California Chrome also has at least 6 crosses to Princequillo, many of which are via Somethingroyal, Secretariat's dam (one of these is through a daughter of Secretariat who was the dam of AP Indy - Secretariat's daughters being excellent producers). Princequillo had a so-called "large heart gene" (http://horsesonly.com/crossroads/xfactor/heart-1.htm;http://www.sport-horse-breeder.com/large-heart.html) which is apparently passed through the female line. If anyone recalls, when Secretariat died, they found that his heart was almost three times the size of the normal thoroughbred's. Perhaps this led to better processing of oxygen, etc. so he could handle the distance.

All-in-all, the owners who bred this colt weren't dumbasses at all as colt is bred up the wazoo to run. IMHO, if he doesn't win the Belmont, it won't be because he's not bred for it.

Article Summary: California Chrome has a great pedigree, despite the low cost of his parents. There are two key gene variants of one gene called MSTN that govern whether a horse is better at sprinting or endurance/staying, with the presence of both conveying an advantage over the middle distances. His pedigree includes both variants.

No mention is made as to what California Chrome's MSTN variants actually are - leaving us to guess that he perhaps has one of each.

Sometimes the genetic lottery produces a winner despite a lesser pedigree. Affirmed, the last Triple Crown winner, was actually one of those horses. Sure, Affirmed had Triple Crown Winner War Admiral in his lineage, but his sire and dam did not scream Triple Crown contender. Alydar, on the other hand, had the lineage and was the overwhelming favorite going into the 1978 Kentucky Derby. But in each of the Triple Crown races in 1978, Affirmed narrowly edged out Alydar for the victory.

When it came time for stud, however, Alydar's superior lineage resulted in up to quarter million dollar stud fees and a strong line of winners, while Affirmed commanded a far smaller stud fee.

...when Secretariat died, they found that his heart was almost three times the size of the normal thoroughbred's. Perhaps this led to better processing of oxygen, etc. so he could handle the distance.

I wonder... I do recall hearing about the heart. A bigger heart should be able to move more blood. In a closed system like a horse body, seems like that would just result in higher blood pressure, if number of beats remain the same. Maybe he just didn't need to pump as often, though, to move the blood. Maybe that saved some energy v. smaller hearts working faster.

I have heard 'good set of lungs' as an expression to describe anyone or thing in good shape. Good stamina. That would seem to have more to do with oxygen processing.

And correctly so. Few horse breeds are as inbred as Thoroughbreds. Not counting some nearly extinct specialty breeds that were brought back from extremely low stock.

It's fairly common knowledge (well, err, among horse people it is) that all go back to a mere 3 sires: Byerley Turk, Godolphin Arabian and Darley Arabian. If not, then they are NOT pure thoroughbred, in terms of stud book records. Wiki will give you a decent summary if you want to know more.

I used to have a trainer who cynically described it thus: "with TBs you either get a speed fiend or 3 headed mutants".

You'll find the tendency even among other breeds (mine has the same great-grandfather, as he's considered the stallion par excellence of the modern form if his breed), though arguably nothing like TBs.

Now I'll shut up as I'm aware that I myself am a very rare breed of IT nerd who works with and loves horses.

I've heard people speculate that there will never be another triple crown winner because the Belmont happens too soon after the Preakness and any horse that put enough into winning the Preakness won't be in shape to win at the Belmont. They'll always lose to some horse that didn't run at least one of the previous two races.

...when Secretariat died, they found that his heart was almost three times the size of the normal thoroughbred's. Perhaps this led to better processing of oxygen, etc. so he could handle the distance.

I wonder... I do recall hearing about the heart. A bigger heart should be able to move more blood. In a closed system like a horse body, seems like that would just result in higher blood pressure, if number of beats remain the same. Maybe he just didn't need to pump as often, though, to move the blood. Maybe that saved some energy v. smaller hearts working faster.

I have heard 'good set of lungs' as an expression to describe anyone or thing in good shape. Good stamina. That would seem to have more to do with oxygen processing.

The abnormally large hearts are beneficial to be sure, the heart is the limiting factor in endurance at peak performance. That's why blood doping increases performance, it's not increasing oxygen intake, it's increasing oxygen distribution. A big heart does the same.

I've heard people speculate that there will never be another triple crown winner because the Belmont happens too soon after the Preakness and any horse that put enough into winning the Preakness won't be in shape to win at the Belmont. They'll always lose to some horse that didn't run at least one of the previous two races.

It had been 25 years since the last triple-crown winner before Secretariat did it in 1973. We're at a 37 year drought now. I think the practice of running fresh horses in the Belmont makes it harder, but an exceptional horse will pull it off some day.

Secretariat still holds the record time for all 3 of the races, the Kentucky Derby and Preakness records aren't standing by much, just fractions of a second, while his Belmont time was a full 2 seconds faster than the next closest, 4.5 seconds faster than this year's winner (Tonalist). So really, being fresh isn't everything, because the freshest horse has yet to come all that close to breaking the record.

I've heard people speculate that there will never be another triple crown winner because the Belmont happens too soon after the Preakness and any horse that put enough into winning the Preakness won't be in shape to win at the Belmont. They'll always lose to some horse that didn't run at least one of the previous two races.

It had been 25 years since the last triple-crown winner before Secretariat did it in 1973. We're at a 37 year drought now. I think the practice of running fresh horses in the Belmont makes it harder, but an exceptional horse will pull it off some day.

Secretariat still holds the record time for all 3 of the races, the Kentucky Derby and Preakness records aren't standing by much, just fractions of a second, while his Belmont time was a full 2 seconds faster than the next closest, 4.5 seconds faster than this year's winner (Tonalist). So really, being fresh isn't everything, because the freshest horse has yet to come all that close to breaking the record.

I read it's been ~ 9 years since the Belmont winner also ran the Preakness.

The way it's being gamed now it will take an astounding horse to triple any time soon. Right now the Belmont is acting as the stage for everyone to just prevent a Triple Crown winner rather than being a legitimate test. That's a shame as it hurts the Belmont's prestige. Same with the Preakness, as it is becoming the leg that the other Kentucky runners avoid.

I read it's been ~ 9 years since the Belmont winner also ran the Preakness.

The way it's being gamed now it will take an astounding horse to triple any time soon. Right now the Belmont is acting as the stage for everyone to just prevent a Triple Crown winner rather than being a legitimate test. That's a shame as it hurts the Belmont's prestige. Same with the Preakness, as it is becoming the leg that the other Kentucky runners avoid.

Sports Illustrated or NBC Sports (the sites seem to meld together, so no idea which is which from down here) had a commentary that the Triple Crown drought has been hurting the Belmont, because by then nobody cares anymore. Except for those racing, but the money is in the punters. They had a blip precisely due to C.C. - which may result in another worse drop next year due to the "hangover".

However, a quick glance at dates of past races show that the spacing has always been in the range it currently is. That means it's a bit of a weak excuse to claim the Belmont is "too close": horses have managed in the past, they should manage today. I couldn't tell if there were requirements in the past that laid a baseline ensuring horses were at similar "freshness" instead of saving themselves just for one race.

Personally, I blame changes in breeding and training. If you have the stomach for it, watch the documentary "Breakdown - Death and Disarray at America's Racetracks". Afterwards you might all actually demand an immediate halt to all horse racing, though. Living in what is arguably Australia's largest Thoroughbred breeding area, I would say it's not much different here. For every Black Caviar, there's a thousand horses turned to dog food. It's disgusting.

I've heard people speculate that there will never be another triple crown winner because the Belmont happens too soon after the Preakness and any horse that put enough into winning the Preakness won't be in shape to win at the Belmont. They'll always lose to some horse that didn't run at least one of the previous two races.

It had been 25 years since the last triple-crown winner before Secretariat did it in 1973. We're at a 37 year drought now. I think the practice of running fresh horses in the Belmont makes it harder, but an exceptional horse will pull it off some day.

Secretariat still holds the record time for all 3 of the races, the Kentucky Derby and Preakness records aren't standing by much, just fractions of a second, while his Belmont time was a full 2 seconds faster than the next closest, 4.5 seconds faster than this year's winner (Tonalist). So really, being fresh isn't everything, because the freshest horse has yet to come all that close to breaking the record.

Yah, Secretariat was a really rare genetic freak. He didn't even really look like a typical thoroughbred, though he was one. He was bulky and even deeper in the chest than most, IIRC. Arguably, he would still win the triple crown today with possibly faster times due to more modern training techniques.

Yah, Secretariat was a really rare genetic freak. He didn't even really look like a typical thoroughbred, though he was one. He was bulky and even deeper in the chest than most, IIRC. Arguably, he would still win the triple crown today with possibly faster times due to more modern training techniques.

Truly, he was the last of the mearas ;-) Shadowfax' last scion.

Seriously, he had a lot of attributes of a modern day eventer, with the ability the run long distances, but also with the strength and build to do dressage and jumping. Even in old age he looked stunning (check Youtube for his last know video footage).

I'm disappointed that Ars didn't cover the increasing fragility that has also come about from inbreeding the fastest 2-3 year-olds regardless of their record of injuries. 1,200+ pounds of pressure impacting the ground at 30+ miles per hour in an area roughly the diameter of a soda can doesn't leave much room for defects. The rate of serious injuries and fatalities has risen in the US over the past 20 years (it's now twice that of England and three times that of countries like Uruguay), even as the number of races the horses run per year and length of their careers has halved.

The underlying problem is that the racing industry has focused overwhelmingly on the progeny of Bold Ruler and Native Dancer, while other famous lines like Secretariat or Seattle Slew have been allowed to die out. In the past, owners bought & bred thoroughbreds in hope of improving the breed and producing a champion for their stable, but corporations interested in making money by selling yearlings now dominate. At many sales, yearlings' abilities are shown off with sprints (longer races could cause harm); horses with more endurance look "slow" in that environment and sell for much less money, so the corporations focus on breeding faster and faster sprinters.

States allowing heavy use of drugs to mask pain/inflammation have been a huge culprit in this, as it lets a horse potentially win that would normally be beaten by a horse with sound legs, and thus be in more demand for breeding in retirement. Because people interested in the stallion's semen or a yearling can't tell what drugs had been in use -- let alone what surgery had been needed -- they have no way of telling whether their new racehorse is going to thrive or have a fatal breakdown.

The slow "death" of the industry as Americans slowly lose interest is also related to this. It used to be that horses would run a dozen or two races per season for 3-4 years, giving time for the public to get to know them and intense rivalries to build. Now, we hear about a horse perhaps once if it has the chance of winning the Triple Crown, and never again unless they end up dying gruesomely on the track. Also, as I've learned watching longer races from Europe online, a variety of ages & experience levels competing leads races exciting enough that they're talked about at the proverbial water cooler for the next week.

I've heard people speculate that there will never be another triple crown winner because the Belmont happens too soon after the Preakness and any horse that put enough into winning the Preakness won't be in shape to win at the Belmont. They'll always lose to some horse that didn't run at least one of the previous two races.

It had been 25 years since the last triple-crown winner before Secretariat did it in 1973. We're at a 37 year drought now. I think the practice of running fresh horses in the Belmont makes it harder, but an exceptional horse will pull it off some day.

Secretariat still holds the record time for all 3 of the races, the Kentucky Derby and Preakness records aren't standing by much, just fractions of a second, while his Belmont time was a full 2 seconds faster than the next closest, 4.5 seconds faster than this year's winner (Tonalist). So really, being fresh isn't everything, because the freshest horse has yet to come all that close to breaking the record.

I read it's been ~ 9 years since the Belmont winner also ran the Preakness.

The way it's being gamed now it will take an astounding horse to triple any time soon. Right now the Belmont is acting as the stage for everyone to just prevent a Triple Crown winner rather than being a legitimate test. That's a shame as it hurts the Belmont's prestige. Same with the Preakness, as it is becoming the leg that the other Kentucky runners avoid.

As with all such things, these issues should be settled with the numbers. The media does not disappoint. Instead of a single writer framing this issue with actual numbers, it is all garbage analysis. No where can you find California Chrome's official time for the Belmont which would shed a lot of light on the subject. The following is what I could glean in my frustrating goggling experience to try to get the numbers.

1). Tonalist's Belmont time of 2:28.52 was not a fast run for a Triple Crown winning horse. Secretariat, Affirmed and Seattle Slew (the most recent Triple Crown winners) would have smoked his ass. So, no, this new practice does not prevent a triple crown winner.

2). Having said that, Tonalist's Belmont time was about average for a Triple Crown winning horse.The one caveat, one would think there are better training methods since '73 '77 and '78. So one would imagine the triple crown winning horses times to be faster in the Belmont today then in years past. Still, some of the slower ones would most likely have been denied a triple crown if Tonalist was in their race. The other caveat, all the triple crown winners won, so the slower ones might have run faster in the Belmont if a horse had been ahead of them. One does have a good argument that at least a couple of the slowest triple crown winning horses would have failed if Tonalist had been in their Belmont race.

3) As I said I can not find an official time for California Chrome. He finished fourth about a length and a half back. From this, had he won the triple crown, his Belmont time would have been one of the slower ones for a Triple Crown winner. Maybe the slowest and those horses who were slower were trained decades before the most recent Triple Crown winners who would have SMOKED California Chrome. Secretariat, Affirmed and Seattle Slew would have put an epic beat down on Chrome in the Belmont. In other words, the owner of California Chrome might have an argument against the recent practice about running fresh horses in the Belmont against Triple Crown hopefuls, but he has NO ARGUMENT for his horse.

I've heard people speculate that there will never be another triple crown winner because the Belmont happens too soon after the Preakness and any horse that put enough into winning the Preakness won't be in shape to win at the Belmont. They'll always lose to some horse that didn't run at least one of the previous two races.

It had been 25 years since the last triple-crown winner before Secretariat did it in 1973. We're at a 37 year drought now. I think the practice of running fresh horses in the Belmont makes it harder, but an exceptional horse will pull it off some day.

Secretariat still holds the record time for all 3 of the races, the Kentucky Derby and Preakness records aren't standing by much, just fractions of a second, while his Belmont time was a full 2 seconds faster than the next closest, 4.5 seconds faster than this year's winner (Tonalist). So really, being fresh isn't everything, because the freshest horse has yet to come all that close to breaking the record.

I read it's been ~ 9 years since the Belmont winner also ran the Preakness.

The way it's being gamed now it will take an astounding horse to triple any time soon. Right now the Belmont is acting as the stage for everyone to just prevent a Triple Crown winner rather than being a legitimate test. That's a shame as it hurts the Belmont's prestige. Same with the Preakness, as it is becoming the leg that the other Kentucky runners avoid.

As with all such things, these issues should be settled with the numbers. The media does not disappoint. Instead of a single writer framing this issue with actual numbers, it is all garbage analysis. No where can you find California Chrome's official time for the Belmont which would shed a lot of light on the subject. The following is what I could glean in my frustrating goggling experience to try to get the numbers.

1). Tonalist's Belmont time of 2:28.52 was not a fast run for a Triple Crown winning horse. Secretariat, Affirmed and Seattle Slew (the most recent Triple Crown winners) would have smoked his ass. So, no, this new practice does not prevent a triple crown winner.

2). Having said that, Tonalist's Belmont time was about average for a Triple Crown winning horse.The one caveat, one would think there are better training methods since '73 '77 and '78. So one would imagine the triple crown winning horses times to be faster in the Belmont today then in years past. Still, some of the slower ones would most likely have been denied a triple crown if Tonalist was in their race. The other caveat, all the triple crown winners won, so the slower ones might have run faster in the Belmont if a horse had been ahead of them. One does have a good argument that at least a couple of the slowest triple crown winning horses would have failed if Tonalist had been in their Belmont race.

3) As I said I can not find an official time for California Chrome. He finished fourth about a length and a half back. From this, had he won the triple crown, his Belmont time would have been one of the slower ones for a Triple Crown winner. Maybe the slowest and those horses who were slower were trained decades before the most recent Triple Crown winners who would have SMOKED California Chrome. Secretariat, Affirmed and Seattle Slew would have put an epic beat down on Chrome in the Belmont. In other words, the owner of California Chrome might have an argument against the recent practice about running fresh horses in the Belmont against Triple Crown hopefuls, but he has NO ARGUMENT for his horse.

That's an overly simplistic analysis. Secretariat, disregarding his true awesomeness, ran against 5 horses vs 11 for CC. Different race strategies may have played a role. Perhaps they were gunning for him. I am definitely not saying CC would have been as fast as the above but he may well have done better one just can't say.

Besides, The Triple Crown winner isn't like a decathlete competing against the clock, nor is s/he competing against those of previous years. S/he is like the Olympic winner - the best at the time. I just think the sport has evolved beyond tradition – if the horses are more tuned to a longer span between races, then change.

They bent the rules to allow CC to run. Its my opinion that that should not have happened. CC is simply not that good of a horse. The reason the Triple Crown is such an accomplishment is because it takes a super horse to run the three races and win each one. The other Triple Crown winners ran under the same conditions that CC did. The owners crying is simply that of a sore loser who thought he should have been given the win just for showing up.

The slow "death" of the industry as Americans slowly lose interest is also related to this. It used to be that horses would run a dozen or two races per season for 3-4 years, giving time for the public to get to know them and intense rivalries to build. Now, we hear about a horse perhaps once if it has the chance of winning the Triple Crown, and never again unless they end up dying gruesomely on the track. Also, as I've learned watching longer races from Europe online, a variety of ages & experience levels competing leads races exciting enough that they're talked about at the proverbial water cooler for the next week.

Not that I can formally make some sort of claim here, but yes, I'd already pointed to that first documentary. Though your analysis was far more in depth and kudos to you and I utterly agree!

That said, I have little exposure to the European (and we're probably talking Western and Central European, not Southern or Eastern?) racing industry, so can only compare the US to what I see down here.

As I'd alluded to, if you looked down here in Australia you'd also find much amiss. Different from the US, it seems. The approach here seems a form of breeder's gambling: produce as many horses as possible and just hope one turns out to win the next Melbourne Cup. Very little planning, very little focused breeding. Who cares that the majority of horses bred that way end up at the knackers? :-(

Which is more than idiotic in many ways: the *winners* of races the the Spring Carnival cups, as well as exceptional horses like Black Caviar, are *not* the product of breeder's gambling but of careful study (even computerised) of gene lines and take years of planning. But try and get that into the heads of some people in this area... it's maddening!

On that topic, I need to have a look at some of Black Caviar's times and compare them to the times of Triple Crown winners. She, too, was a sprinter (the Belmont would still be a sprint by our standards, where the Melbourne Cup is 2 miles ;-)

They bent the rules to allow CC to run. Its my opinion that that should not have happened. CC is simply not that good of a horse. The reason the Triple Crown is such an accomplishment is because it takes a super horse to run the three races and win each one. The other Triple Crown winners ran under the same conditions that CC did. The owners crying is simply that of a sore loser who thought he should have been given the win just for showing up.

Could you elaborate? Serious question. I'm not familiar enough with the rules in the US. What was done that should not have which allowed CC to run? Was it that nose band thing? I was surprised at the kerfuffle about this - I dimly remembered these things were debunked years ago.

On that topic, I need to have a look at some of Black Caviar's times and compare them to the times of Triple Crown winners. She, too, was a sprinter (the Belmont would still be a sprint by our standards, where the Melbourne Cup is 2 miles ;-)

Looking at her record on Wikipedia, she was a pure sprinter though with her longest race roughly the equivalent of 7/8th of a mile. The American Triple Crown races are 1.25, 1.1875 and 1.5 miles long by comparison, plus they're all dirt races unlike the turf that's favored in the rest of the world.

Looking at her record on Wikipedia, she was a pure sprinter though with her longest race roughly the equivalent of 7/8th of a mile. The American Triple Crown races are 1.25, 1.1875 and 1.5 miles long by comparison, plus they're all dirt races unlike the turf that's favored in the rest of the world.

Ah, thanks for checking! It's deworming day, oh joy, so I'm off and on the comp. >.<

Oh, and I didn't mean to imply that B.C. ever ran anything as long as the Melbourne Cup. Just to clarify.

They bent the rules to allow CC to run. Its my opinion that that should not have happened. CC is simply not that good of a horse. The reason the Triple Crown is such an accomplishment is because it takes a super horse to run the three races and win each one. The other Triple Crown winners ran under the same conditions that CC did. The owners crying is simply that of a sore loser who thought he should have been given the win just for showing up.

Unlike California Chrome, Secretariat and Affirmed ran against the same horses in all three legs of the Triple Crown, with Alydar famously finishing second all three times, and Sham finishing second in the first two, and then, having his spirit crushed by Secretariat, finishing last in spite of having opened a 10 length lead on the other three horses in the Belmont. While is it highly likely that Secretariat would have won anyway, in a race with more than four other horses, there is a chance that he might have gotten trapped and been unable to find a way to the front.*

In contrast, California Chrome raced in more of the first two legs of the Triple Crown races than all of the horses that beat him combined. Whether it would have mattered is a moot point, but at least a one time, the Triple Crown was a set of races and the Triple Crown winners beat the same competition three times in a row rather than facing fresh horses in each leg. The likelihood of a horse being able to win at all three distances against specialists who only run those distances is much less than a horse being able, as with earlier Triple Crown winners to beat the same field repeatedly.

*Given the fact that Secretariat was last in the early running of the Derby and Preakness and won by coming up on the outside, losing by being boxed in in the Belmont would have been poor tactics on the part of the jockey. On the other hand, Secretariat won by such a margin in the Belmont because he ran so fast for the entire race that the other horses had no chance; if he had not been able to push the early pace, the race might have been much closer because the other horses might have had more of a kick left.

They bent the rules to allow CC to run. Its my opinion that that should not have happened. CC is simply not that good of a horse. The reason the Triple Crown is such an accomplishment is because it takes a super horse to run the three races and win each one. The other Triple Crown winners ran under the same conditions that CC did. The owners crying is simply that of a sore loser who thought he should have been given the win just for showing up.

Unlike California Chrome, Secretariat and Affirmed ran against the same horses in all three legs of the Triple Crown, with Alydar famously finishing second all three times, and Sham finishing second in the first two, and then, having his spirit crushed by Secretariat, finishing last in spite of having opened a 10 length lead on the other three horses in the Belmont. While is it highly likely that Secretariat would have won anyway, in a race with more than four other horses, there is a chance that he might have gotten trapped and been unable to find a way to the front.*

In contrast, California Chrome raced in more of the first two legs of the Triple Crown races than all of the horses that beat him combined. Whether it would have mattered is a moot point, but at least a one time, the Triple Crown was a set of races and the Triple Crown winners beat the same competition three times in a row rather than facing fresh horses in each leg. The likelihood of a horse being able to win at all three distances against specialists who only run those distances is much less than a horse being able, as with earlier Triple Crown winners to beat the same field repeatedly.

*Given the fact that Secretariat was last in the early running of the Derby and Preakness and won by coming up on the outside, losing by being boxed in in the Belmont would have been poor tactics on the part of the jockey. On the other hand, Secretariat won by such a margin in the Belmont because he ran so fast for the entire race that the other horses had no chance; if he had not been able to push the early pace, the race might have been much closer because the other horses might have had more of a kick left.

I think it's pretty obvious that fresh horses make it a little harder for there to be a triple crown winner, but if you look at the triple crown winner's times at the Belmont, you see they are often faster than the fresh horses coming in. Secretariat's Belmont win came with fewer horses, but no horse has ever run a faster 1.5 miles on a dirt track. While lesser horses have won the Triple Crown due to lack of fresh horses in the Belmont, it doesn't mean it can't be done due to fresh horses, it's just a little harder. Even if the Belmont was the first race, or if there were more time between, there's still a very good chance that CC would have lost it, he's good, not great.

I think it's pretty obvious that fresh horses make it a little harder for there to be a triple crown winner, but if you look at the triple crown winner's times at the Belmont, you see they are often faster than the fresh horses coming in. Secretariat's Belmont win came with fewer horses, but no horse has ever run a faster 1.5 miles on a dirt track. While lesser horses have won the Triple Crown due to lack of fresh horses in the Belmont, it doesn't mean it can't be done due to fresh horses, it's just a little harder. Even if the Belmont was the first race, or if there were more time between, there's still a very good chance that CC would have lost it, he's good, not great.

Perhaps. However, you seem to be arguing that there has been only one great horse in the history of the Triple Crown. Since Secretariat set records in all three races, he would have beaten any other horse who ever ran those races. On the other hand, would a very good distance specialist, pushed by Secretariat, have run faster than 2:24? (Or faster than the 2:26 or so of some of the faster Belmont winners?) We cannot say, because Secretariat and the other Triple Crown winners did not have to face a fresh distance specialist when they ran the Belmont.

Even Secretariat never ran 1.5 miles as fast as he did that day. And he was third in the race before the Derby. Maybe that is what you are arguing: to be great, a horse has to have his/her best possible performance on each of the three races of the Triple Crown. In other words, to be considered great, a horse has to be good and lucky.

I think it's pretty obvious that fresh horses make it a little harder for there to be a triple crown winner, but if you look at the triple crown winner's times at the Belmont, you see they are often faster than the fresh horses coming in. Secretariat's Belmont win came with fewer horses, but no horse has ever run a faster 1.5 miles on a dirt track. While lesser horses have won the Triple Crown due to lack of fresh horses in the Belmont, it doesn't mean it can't be done due to fresh horses, it's just a little harder. Even if the Belmont was the first race, or if there were more time between, there's still a very good chance that CC would have lost it, he's good, not great.

Perhaps. However, you seem to be arguing that there has been only one great horse in the history of the Triple Crown. Since Secretariat set records in all three races, he would have beaten any other horse who ever ran those races. On the other hand, would a very good distance specialist, pushed by Secretariat, have run faster than 2:24? (Or faster than the 2:26 or so of some of the faster Belmont winners?) We cannot say, because Secretariat and the other Triple Crown winners did not have to face a fresh distance specialist when they ran the Belmont.

Even Secretariat never ran 1.5 miles as fast as he did that day. And he was third in the race before the Derby. Maybe that is what you are arguing: to be great, a horse has to have his/her best possible performance on each of the three races of the Triple Crown. In other words, to be considered great, a horse has to be good and lucky.

It's definitely true, even Secretariat lost races, there were some health reasons that could be cited, but happen at the wrong time and no Triple Crown, or rider error could blow the whole thing, it's a tough task.

My point is just that allowing fresh horses in the Belmont does not preclude a Triple Crown winner. It makes it marginally harder, but it was never easy. Seattle Slew won a slower than average Belmont, but Affirmed and Secretariat were both well ahead of the average winning time. The average Belmont winning time has remained pretty consistent over the last 45 years, which lends support to the idea that fresh horses aren't ruining it for the rest of the pack. A number of recent Belmont winners have run all 3 races too, they were just better at the longer distance, so didn't really have a shot at the Triple Crown.

It's easier for a horse to win both the Derby and the Preakness than it is for a horse to win the Belmont and one of the others, that's for sure, so if the Belmont was first or second, you'd have far fewer chances to be disappointed by the last race, as winning the first two wouldn't happen often. I'd rather see a Triple Crown winner come from a full field at the Belmont than limit it and have it happen more frequently.

It's easier for a horse to win both the Derby and the Preakness than it is for a horse to win the Belmont and one of the others, that's for sure, so if the Belmont was first or second, you'd have far fewer chances to be disappointed by the last race, as winning the first two wouldn't happen often. I'd rather see a Triple Crown winner come from a full field at the Belmont than limit it and have it happen more frequently.

For fun, I just counted it on Wiki. I left out non-starters or DNF. It's actually 22 horse that won the Belmont and either the Derby or Preakness versus 18 that did the Derby/Preakness before losing in the Belmont. With the given sample set, I'd say there's no real statistical correlation. Glad to be proven wrong, if somebody does the math.

Also, looking at the Belmont again, we *could* possibly point to a combination of rider error and "too many horses". Meaning, look at how CC got boxed in on the inside. Seems like a great position to be on the inside, but then wasn't able to break out easily. Had to excessively get to the far, far outside and that's quite some work to do when the field is that close.

With fewer horses CC may have been able to break out more easily while having less distance to add to get to an advantageous position. One could argue the jockey should have expected that. The box 2 starting position turned out to actually be a mixed blessing.